Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
Natalie – Kingston Bridge saw two tragedies this weekend:
– at 0140GMT Saturday, a named man died when a vehicle struck a barrier.
– at 0345GMT Sunday an unnamed man died when struck by a taxi.
http://bloggingrbi.blogspot.com/2006/12/bbc-compared.html
Chris Riley has an interesting side by side comparison of the BBC’s top stories as they placed them, compared with the top stories as counted by the site’s “most popular” feature.
BBC News is 22% in touch with what we’re reading
http://cgriley.com/bbctouch/
panorama tonight – with the troops in afghanistan.
there was one overwhelmingly obvious omission – the ideology (and thus, the motivation) of the Taliban was never mentioned.
Did anyone else hear the nauseating NuLab moron on the radio 4 programme after I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue?
Apparently, ‘care in the community’ crazies carry out FIFTY murders a year.
Three points struck me:
1. The Beeboid drones consistently referred to the murders as ‘killings’.
2. The interviewer did not ask how much more mayhem and suffering is caused by these people. The murders must be the tip of the iceberg.
3. The NuLayber idiot actually used the phrase ‘a tiny minority’ while trying to downplay the carnage – this was not picked up by the interviewer.
She did not have a leg to stand on. A decent (right-wing) interviewer would have stomped her into the ground.
She must have been pretty sure of an easy ride from her pals at the Beeb though.
Sure am glad I don’t pay for this crap any more. I’ve been licence-free for over a year now.
Apologies for not bothering to provide specific references/links in the above. Since I stopped paying Auntie’s protection money I rather enjoy the incompetence & bias of the BBC. I think they should put the licence fee up to at least £300.
It’s the current crop of pretend politicians that really pisses me off.
its bad isnt it? if its 50 murders a year, how many were NOT reported. thats about 1 a week.
“About 50 protesters participated in the two-hour long demonstration”
Another “massive” protest reported by the BBc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6203762.stm
Tessa Jowell: “There is no reason why this should lead to a delay in settling the licence fee.”
What she really meant: “You weren’t going to get all you wanted, and you’re still not.”
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1962961,00.html
Jon said:
“About 50 protesters participated in the two-hour long demonstration”
Another “massive” protest reported by the BBc.
Well spotted. I have long thought that an investigation is due into how big a crowd has to be to merit coverage by Al-Beeb. I reckon some sort of wacky mathematic formula is possible (you know the ones: “Scientists have worked out the formula for happiness where x=money, y = love life….”)
If you’re the Coutryside Alliance, 420,000 might get you a mention, but a scornful one at that.
If you’re the Vegetarian Gay Muslim Federation Against Calf Exports, you need three wimmin, one man and a dog (not neccessarily Joanna Lumley), and ten minutes’ air time is yours.
South Today, for instance – the TV version of the desperately bad Radio Solent (of ageist producer fame). The five minute lead news story on 31st November, was all about some woman living next door to an Isle of Wight gun club. Lots of shaky footage (taken by the woman herself), one or two neighbours says “Oooh, it’s terrible!” and an overpowering message that guns are bad, people who use them are even badder. Nasty horrid things.
But this, apparently, was the most important thing that happened in Central Southern England that day. Either that, ot she had s friend in South Today editorial team, and is having trouble selling her house.
One Way Street
That’s what it feels like on the Today programme. This morning we have Guantanamo, with a lawyer for one of the detainees interviewed along with a US Government representative. Guess who was asked the tough questions by Montaquinn? Correct. Guess whose statements went completely unchallenged by Montaquinn? Correct.
And why do the BBC insist on pretending that the current demonstrations in Beirut are an expression of democracy, and not a direct challenge to elected Government by Iranian backed Shia elements?
Kofi Annan concedes that Iraq is probably now in a civil war on the basis that the levels of killing and bitterness is now worse than it was in Lebanon’s civil war:
“A few years ago, when we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war. This is much worse.”
The BBC report this as “situation in Iraq has become “much worse” than a civil war”
Worse THAN a civil war?
Sloppy, agenda driven reporting
Article on BBC4 by Helen Rumbelow in the Times this morning, in case anyone wants to respond.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2485176,00.html
The BBC and half a story;
“Alliance officials also confirmed that a Nato-chartered transport helicopter carrying eight crew crashed in the north of Kandahar province on Saturday. There was no sign that anyone had survived. The Taleban said they shot down the helicopter, but this could not be confirmed.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6204866.stm
and how Reuters wrote that snippet;
A search is under way for a civilian helicopter that went missing in bad weather on Saturday while ferrying supplies for foreign forces in southern Afghanistan.The chartered helicopter was headed from the capital of Kandahar province, Kandahar city, to the neighboring province of Uruzgan when it went missing, a NATO spokesman said in Kabul.There were no NATO personnel on board.
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-02T150147Z_01_MOL254028_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-AFGHAN-HELICOPTER-COL.XML&archived=False
The BBC paints the image that it was being used by NATO. (Oh by the way BBC the correct way to write nato is NATO) It omits the bad weather but includes the obligatorily “The Taliban did it” as it does mentioning the civilian crew.
Smoke and mirrors anybody?
The BBC and half a story.
JoB,
Presumably in defending or not attacking ‘care in the community’ the Beeb interviewers were covering up for the Thatcher government rather than New Labour as I seem to recall it was them who vasty increased the programme to cut costs, sorry to prevent stigmatisation. It’s certainly time to look at more reactionary solutions and it’s very irritating having to deal with the amount of nutcases about whilst winding one’s law abiding albeit slightly drunken way around the West End at 3am on a Saturday morning, however 50 murders a year in a nation of 60m hardly constitutes ‘carnage’ unpleasant though it is.
Abandon ship!
But wasn’t the US Government representative on Guantanamo like fresh air
Jim Naughtie & Sarah Montague sounded as if they both had hangovers.
A discussion of Trident-so invite a balanced studio discussion with Bruce Kent(CND) & Ming Ding.
Did you notice Naughtie talking to Kent refused to repeat “terrorism” back to him, naming only “health, climate change, and so on”. The threat of terrorism equals “and so on” in Naughtie’s vocabulary! BBC bias?
One highlight was Lady Estelle Morris talking about Education and the demise of modern languages in our schools
“I’m one who thinks languages is(sic) very very important”
Of course you do Estelle. No admission or questioning on radio, that such a demise is due to the increased levels of immigration! Immigration like Terrorism best avoided topics on the Today programme.
Slipped in we get the admission that somehow there are increased numbers of children in schools who lack basic English skills, so the Government thought it necessary to concentrate on this rather than teach modern languages such as French, Spanish, Italian, German or Russian.
Notice too the implicit racism that occurs by these same politicians when they say that an increasing number of schoolchildren anyway, are already bilingual.
Isn’t it amazing how the English over the centuries were always accused of being lazy and now they have evolved so splendidly! But somehow I don’t think we are talking about the English people.
So English schoolchildren don’t really need to learn European languages because they lack basic English skills and many are already bi-lingual?
How the BBC can get away with not labelling Demos as “left-wing” is beyond me, given that they label centre-right groups as “right-wing” at the drop of a beret:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6205050.stm
Beeb promulgates its worldview regarding religion…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6199716.stm
Any chance of a right to reply from someone who isn’t an Imam?
How the BBC does ‘impartiality’
The big 08:10 interview on Radio 4 Today programme.
The Question? Should we renew our nuclear defence capability?
To discuss the issue ‘impartially’, without ‘bias’, the following two individuals are invited to join the ‘discussion’:
Bruce Kemp, Vice President, CND; and
Ming Campbell, Leader, Lib Dems.
0810 We speak to Sir Menzies Campbell about the importance of retaining a nuclear weapons capability.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_nuclear_20061204.ram
There followed a discussion amongst three people, none of which argued in favour of the renewal of trident. No-one put forward the argument for renewal of trident. Why no Tory or NuLab MP asked on? No rep from the tories available? No rep from NuLab available?
The flipside of this partial and biased discussion would be a discussion on foxhunting with Naughtie interviewing only a shire Tory MP and the head of the Countryside Alliance. No chance.
The BBC. We’re partial and biased. It’s what we do best. More money please.
A discussion of Trident-so invite a balanced studio discussion with Bruce Kent(CND) & Ming Ding.
john | 04.12.06 – 10:40 am | #
————————————————————————-
Beat me too it john!
More PC nonsense from socialist Today:
0850 Have government efforts to engage with the Muslim community post 7/7 actually driven a wedge between many Muslims and the wider community?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_muslims_20061204.ram
No, but continual BBC efforts to paint all muslims as ‘victims’ of the West have done huge damage.
It’s really come to something when we have to turn to the Chinese media to get the truth!
http://english.people.com.cn/200612/04/eng20061204_327819.html
The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) announced on Sunday that it decided to quit the truce with Israel from now on.
In a statement sent to reporters, Hamas said that it made the decision out of the consideration of the current interior situation in the Palestinian territories
Meanwhile, back in al-Beeb’s Lalalala-Land we get pro-terrorist spin and the return of the ‘home-made rocket’:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6205934.stm
Palestinians are calling for the ceasefire to be extended to the West Bank, where five people, including a 15-year-old stone thrower, have been killed by Israeli fire in the last week.
On Sunday, al-Aqsa Brigades leaders said they would resume rocket attacks against Israel in two weeks, if the ceasefire was not extended to the West Bank.
The ceasefire has put an end to five months of intense fighting in Gaza and raised hopes it could lead to a renewal of long-stalled peace talks.
Israeli forces withdrew from Gaza and the number of home-made rockets being fired at Israeli civilian targets has drastically reduced.
(Note that last line suggesting that the presence of Israeli forces in Gaza is the cause of home-made rockets being fired at Israel.)
marcus “The BBC report this as “situation in Iraq has become “much worse” than a civil war”
Worse THAN a civil war?”
They will have to find a new word for their reports.
Somthing along the lines of “The 3 Amigos” who thought “infamous” was more than “famous”.
Radical views
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/12/radical_views.html
By Harriet Oliver assistant editor, BBC Radio Five Live
“Some opinions are simply wrong and should not be given airtime”.
That’s what one of our listeners said when we asked on Friday if the BBC should allow people with minority, radical and sometimes offensive views on air. The BBC’s head of TV news Peter Horrocks was with us to defend his calls (which you can read in full here) for the BBC to take more risks with guests and represent as many different opinions as possible. Interviews with the Taliban and the BNP were examples he gave of things we should hear on air.
Because Taliban and BNP are opposite sides to the same coin? One group calls for the murdering of infidels, and is a group that the UK is currently at war with, and the other…..?
“My personal view is that he is right, as long as presenters are very well briefed and in a position to conduct a robust interview. There is no excuse for giving such people an easy ride.”
‘Easy rides’ of course should be reserved or those who adhere to the BBC liberal World view, such as BBC darling Ming Ding.
“But ban them altogether? Surely the answer is to challenge them and, in the case of a phone-in programme like ours, give the public the opportunity to challenge them too.
One listener said giving people like the Taliban a platform might help them recruit extremists. But in a multimedia world where such views are widely available in an unchallenged form, isn’t it better to test those views on the BBC rather than pretending they are not there?
But I do have sympathy with another listener who complained that if we have Islamic extremists on air then we give the impression that minority groups are more radical than they actually are. Of course it’s not all about race, which brings me back to the first listener who thinks some opinions are simply wrong. She was actually talking about interviewing paedophiles. Would I put a paedophile on my programme? Well we have heard from reformed paedophiles before. But someone seeking to justify their behaviour? Perhaps not, but I’m nervous about ruling anything or anybody out.”
So, the Taliban, paedophiles, and the BNP. They’re all the same in the BBC book. Sheesh. Where do these people get their morals?
Here’s some sloppy reporting, right on the front page too.
God. Who knows?
Ex-vicar turned atheist on why he’s now passionately agnostic
So is he an atheist or agnostic? In atheism you believe that there is no god (and with all the militant secularism it’s beginning to turn into a religion itself) while if you’re agnostic you just don’t give a crap and pretend the question was never raised.
I am amazed at how the Beeb are covering the “protests” in Lebanon although I suppose I shouldn’t be. The Beeb’s mates Hizbullah mustn’t be annoyed now, must they. What’s actually happening is an attempted coup backed by Iran/Syria, after murdering two Ministers – Hariri and now Gemayel, plus sundry brave journalists who have been courageous enough to report the facts including Syria’s role in all this. The “protesters” are waving Lebanese flags, not Hizbullah flags, and saying the government is useless, when it’s their murdering activities which could render it useless. They’ve obviously thought their PR through very carefully and have loos, generators, tents and could stay for a very long time blocking government offices. There’s no depth in the BBC reporting, they report the “protests” at face value, and as ever, seem to be pleased about anything happening deemed anti-American and anti-Israel. Also anti-Christian and I think the trend for Christians in the Middle East is a tragic downward slope.
I would really like to know who is writing this crap, that I’m forced to pay for, and who is editing it. Does anyone actually read such bias before it’s put up on the web?
So is he an atheist or agnostic? In atheism you believe that there is no god (and with all the militant secularism it’s beginning to turn into a religion itself) while if you’re agnostic you just don’t give a crap and pretend the question was never raised.
FTP | 04.12.06 – 12:45 pm
He does explain himself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6199716.stm
It is a position that interests me because I used to be a priest in the Church of England. Then, to cut a long story short, I left – and I left a confirmed atheist. After a while, I found unbelief as dissatisfying as full-blown Christianity. It seems to entail a kind of puritanism, as if certain areas of human experience must be put off-limits, for fear that they smack of religion. So I became an agnostic.
During ‘From our own correspondent’ this weekend there was a report from Gaza. The correspondent made pointed reference to the number of Israeli and Palestinian casualties, a ratio of about 450 to 5. He then pointed out that most of the casualties on the Palestinan side were civilians.
Later the correspondent spent some time with Palestinian fighters/terrorists who were hiding out in a refugee camp. Guess what? He did not ask the terrorists why they were using civilians as human shields.
No suggestion was made that perhaps, just perhaps, lurking among the civilian population was a cynical tactic aimed at producing exactly the disparity in casualties mentioned above.
I can accept that it would not have been good for his health to ask pointed questions directly to these homicidal maniacs when you are ‘hanging out’ in their territory, but he could have presented the story with at least a nod towards impartiality.
…sorry I forgot, this is the BBC we are talking about. Silly me.
BBC labels youth as ignorant:
Youth poll offers contradictions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6203054.stm
“A poll for the BBC World Service suggests that most 15-17 year olds have a global view of the planet, with almost 80% believing they should be able to move anywhere they want.
But this global view is shaken a little by their perspective on climate change – a mere 5% see it as the most pressing problem facing the Earth right now.
Climate change ignorance
While terrorism is an issue occupying young minds around the globe, climate change clearly is not – 5% of the poll felt it was the most pressing problem the world was facing at present.
Across the 10 cities, some 17% of young people claimed to have never heard of it. Again the poll reflected an East-West split, with 52% of people in Lagos saying they had not heard of the problem, while in New York this was just 6%.”
Don’t agree with the BBC on climate change? You are ignorant! Who decided that? Of course, the BBC. It’s what they do best.
The “protesters” are waving Lebanese flags, not Hizbullah flags, and saying the government is useless, when it’s their murdering activities which could render it useless.
hazel | 04.12.06 – 12:48 pm
Some others are taking down the Lebanese flag and raising the Hezbollah flag, obviously attempting to overthrow the legitimate Lebanese government and replace it with an Iranian sponsored Islamic state.
Don’t agree with the BBC on climate change? You are ignorant! Who decided that? Of course, the BBC. It’s what they do best.
They hadn’t even heard of “climate change” though, that is ignorance.
“situation in Iraq has become “much worse” than a civil war”
Will • it’s not the spin and hyperbole I’m concerned about, you’d expect that of the BBC these days.
The trouble is the deliberate falsification; Kofi Annan says one thing and the BBC report another.
Blair to unveil new Trident plans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6205174.stm
As usual, the compusory soundbite given to CND…
“Kate Hudson, from the anti-nuclear pressure group, CND, told BBC Five Live……
What about pro-nuclear pressure groups? Do they not exist?
Supporters of Nuclear Energy
http://www.sone.org.uk/
er…I don’t think nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are quite the same kettle of fish are they. Is there a dedicated pressure group campaigning for the renewal of Trident? I’d have thought it unecessary given it’s the obviously sensible course of action and those good people in the Conservative Party and the decision makers in the government are quite capable of making the arguments (and being quoted by the Beeb).
Cockney writes:
“I’d have thought it unecessary given it’s the obviously sensible course of action and those good people in the Conservative Party and the decision makers in the government are quite capable of making the arguments (and being quoted by the Beeb).”
So why aren’t they interviewed? On R4’s WAO, exactly the same incontestible bias was displayed: not a single voice in support of a nuclear deterrent was given airtime.
Why? Because the Guardian-readers and Independent-worshippers who staff the BBC from top to bottom are, as usual, in intellctual lock step. This time with the same tirefd old CND claptrap we have been hearing since the 1960s.
Anger at UN chief’s Iraq comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6206480.stm
Incredible. Annan says Iraqi’s better off under murderous dictator one-party state, no freedoms than democratic government.
No hint that it’s the terrorists that might be at fault in Iraq…
Fits the BBC mindset brilliantly. Glad the Iraqi Government is slapping Annan down on this..
Next Week: Annan on how WW2 Germans were better off under Hitler, than the ‘evil’ Berlin Wall….
Wasn’t Liam Fox interviewed on Five Live? That’s what the web article implies.
Wonder whether Branson will appear somewhat tarnished in the starry eyes of the BBC.
Billionaires pay out tiny fraction of wealth
James Dyson, the inventor worth £1,050m, contributed the bulk of the income tax paid by the billionaires — £9m of the £14.7m paid by all 54
Sir Richard Branson has a complicated series of offshore trusts and companies that own his business empire. Branson, whose wealth is calculated at £3,065m, pays relatively little tax as his wealth is tied up in these companies
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2483988.html
Re: Annan comments.
I can well believe that for the average Iraqi the average day was better under Saddam (when not being conscripted for pointless wars with Iran or starving to death due to diversion of post 1991 sanctions income to big palaces). It’s a bit trite to dismiss it as obviously untrue. My Iraqi workmate’s family in Baghdad have gone from a reasonably stable existence (within the context of having to keep one’s head down and gob shut every day) to semi permanant unemployment, exceedingly erratic provision of basic essentials and inability to leave the house due to fear of violent death and I suspect wouldn’t appreciate some Brit telling them they’re loads better off because they’re now ‘free’ and have a vote.
What Annan doesn’t contextualise is the potential. Whether it’s a genuinely diverse Iraq within current borders, an Iraq split between autonomous Kurd, Shia and Sunni areas or an Iraq under another undemocratic strongman I can’t see how it can ultimately be any worse than under Saddam once everything has died down. In a less extreme example most Russians were probably worse off than under the Commies when the economy went t*ts up in the somewhat ill advised shock therapy early capitalist period, but it got better in the end. No pain no gain.
Jonathan Miller | 04.12.06 – 1:01 pm
‘Guess what? He did not ask the terrorists why they were using civilians as human shields’
No. And I didn’t notice the BBC asking Israel’s Defence Minister Amir Peretz iwhy he was using the citizens of Sderot as human shields when a Pally missile landed in the grounds of his home either.
Too much is made of this ‘human shields’ argument.
Kiryat Shmona was packed with IDF during the Leb operation.
Are you going to claim they were using the local Mizrahim as human shields now?
if you’re fighting against an enemy with overwhelming military superiority and you have no means of defending your ‘fighters’ and weaponry from air or missile attack you’d be a bit of an idiot to site them in the middle of nowhere, which is presumably what the Palestinian spokesperson would have said if he was asked and being honest. The alternative is inevitable defeat and loss of your cause. Quite what this means morally or legally (both for the side blurring the military/civilian divide and the side killing ‘civilians’) I can’t quite get my head around.
“Today” this morning really took the biscuit alright.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
0730 Saudi arms deal
0740 Climate change in India
0810 Ming Ding on Nukes
0823 Reading with parents (News from “bleedin’ obvious” land)
0834 Gitmo Gitmo Gitmo
0838 Beirut “we are all hezbollah”
0840 “Ethnic minority mental health”
0850 The Muslim community
wouldnt mind if there was a little slot about news from, oh , i dunno – that nice ,green and pleasant land called England.
Cockney:
er…I don’t think nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are quite the same kettle of fish are they
Seems like the BBC do. Why else would they ask for Kate Hudson’s opinion on nuclear power stations?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4987196.stm
archduke:
“Today” this morning really took the biscuit alright.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/toda…ay/listenagain/
0730 Saudi arms deal
0740 Climate change in India
0810 Ming Ding on Nukes
0823 Reading with parents (News from “bleedin’ obvious” land)
0834 Gitmo Gitmo Gitmo
0838 Beirut “we are all hezbollah”
0840 “Ethnic minority mental health”
0850 The Muslim community
wouldnt mind if there was a little slot about news from, oh , i dunno – that nice ,green and pleasant land called England.
archduke | 04.12.06 – 4:13 pm | #
And there’s some moronic woman in The Super Soaraway Times saying that the Today programme is no different to a courty town in the Cotswolds.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ art…2485176,00.html
The BBC is all over Blair saying “Ah yes” or somesuch to Frosty, or the second transalation from a Palestinian claiming that Bush had said that he spoke with god before attacking Iraq.
However, can’t find a report on their golden girl
In a 20-minute tirade Mr Ammar attacked “unlimited American insanity” for sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. He then said that Israeli “Nazism” was no better than Hitler’s Third Reich.
Ms Royal, who is on her first overseas trip since winning the Socialist Party primary, replied: “Thank you for being so frank. I agree with a lot of the things you have said, notably your analysis of the US.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2485815,00.html
JimBob, oh yeah. What twats they are.
if you’re fighting against an enemy with overwhelming military superiority and you have no means of defending your ‘fighters’ and weaponry from air or missile attack you’d be a bit of an idiot to site them in the middle of nowhere
If you can choose between a field and a town full of civilians, choosing the town is a war crime.
I don’t like Gitmo but Bush was right that it’s legal and they only got him on pedantics. The right response would have been to admit that there’s a hole in the law and seal it (they don’t work retroactively), not to interpret laws how they want. Yet they continue to interpret them how they want and accuse Israel of things that may or may not be war crimes while ignoring groups like Hezbollah who are committing war crimes. This is all from people that probably believe science and evidence and pragmatism are the keys to life, yet they interpret their own laws like a fundamentalist interprets his religion.
All that license fee money, all those journalists, and what do we get? See the lead story on tonight’s 6 o’clock news, on Trident.
I can’t decide what is worse: filling a report with cheap and lazy ‘people on the street’ interviews, all saying “It’s disgraceful”, or the fact that a journalist on the BBC’s flagship early evening news programme can’t pronounce ‘nuclear’.
Cockney:
What it means morally is that those using the human shield tactic don’t have any morals; legally, it is a war crime as defined by the Geneva conventions (but, of course, since the Geneva conventions only apply to Israel and America, that wouldn’t count in this case).
Sky News was actually on at 6pm for me. I don’t really have much choice what digital channels I get to watch. They managed to discuss the issue pretty well but I would say they were a bit biased towards pro-nuclear. It was all about what the actual plans entail rather than what people on the street think about nuclear weapons.
Also look at this dumb poll on the BBC site:
Should there be a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Nuclear powered does not mean it’s carrying nuclear weapons. Of course I understand what they’re really asking but this is so sloppy.
I also have to ask, why is France never brought up when people talk about nuclear weapons? They spat in the face of everyone when they continued doing nuclear tests and they have something like twice the warheads we do. They also still have land based nukes. After the US and Russia they may actually be the third most nuclear nation, but nobody ever bothers to talk about them.